Hate speech: Is there a case for banning?

Public Policy Research

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 213-223

  Parekh, Bhikhu ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IDEOLOGY; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS;

EID: 33845456779     PISSN: 17445396     EISSN: 1744540X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1070-3535.2005.00405.x     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Parts of this article are based on my keynote address at the international conference on hate speech organised by the Cardozo Law School, New York in November 2005. I am most grateful to the School for inviting me to give the address and electing me as its Distinguished Visitor.
2. Some argue that this trend really began with the Supreme Court judgement in Brandenburg vs Ohio in 1969 when it held that speech may be curtailed only when there is 'incitement to imminent lawless action'. See also R. Smolla, Free Speech in an Open Society, New York, 1992.
3. For a sympathetic exploration of the differences between European and American approaches to free speech, see Aernout Nieuwenhuis, 'Freedom of Speech: USA vs Germany and Europe', Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 18/2, 2000.
4. For a valuable discussion, see Stanley Fish, 'There is no such thing as Free Speech and it is a good thing too', Oxford University Press, New York, 1994, especially Chapters 8 and 9.
5. The Canadian Supreme Court spells this out well in R.V. Keegstra (1991). Hate speech, it argues, creates discord in the community, harms the target group, infringes equality, and has a slight social value. See also Robert C. Post, 'Racist Speech, Democracy and the First Amendment', William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 32, 1991, Richard Abel in Speaking Respect, Respecting Speech, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1998 argues that an affront to dignity is at the core of the harm done by hate speech.
6. Frederick Schauer, 'Slippery Slopes', Harvard Law Review, Vol. 99, 1985.
7. For a good discussion of some of these, see Sandra Coliver, ed. Striking a Balance: Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Non-Discrimination, London, University of Essex Press, 1992.
8. A polite but firm request from the White House was enough to 'persuade' CBS, NBS, ABC, FOX and CNN not to broadcast videotapes by Osama Bin Laden. The reason that the tapes might be sending out secret messages was widely known to be spurious as the Al-Jazeera website, easily accessible in the U.S., continued to show them uncensored.